Excess Torque Hypothesis : Mechanical Sustainable Imbalance Possibilities ( <>> ) ?

[Fletcher]

High praise indeed ;7) In all seriousness ME thanks for your input and I hope it continues.

Probably next post I'll detail why traditional chains don't work and why Stevin's problem normally can't be sidestepped.

Work to do.

[WaltzCee]

. . .

These equations were derived with symmetry in mind.

Name one.

Certainly. For me it begins with what some call 1LoT (the first law of thermodynamics).
I prefer to call it DoC (Denial of Creation). Now this in conjunction with the conservative nature
of gravity leads most thinking people to the idea Bessler was a fraud. I strenuously
object to that conclusion. The work a mass does over a certain distance balances out
or equals the precise amount of energy it takes to return it from whence it came. Hence
a semmetry. Symmetry is the philosophical stance of science. I'll concede the points
this philosophy is borne out by observation, and is predictive. No argument there.

However, you'll have to concede it is nothing but a philosophy. Otherwise go pound sand.
Alternatively, admit Bessler was a fraud. Or, offer other options.

This is my story, and I'm sticking to it.:-)

1) energy is derived from the work equation
2) conservation of angular momentum can also be derived from the work-energy theorem.
3) the equal sign implies a symmetry.

I enjoy your discussion, Marcello. You are an amazing asset to this forum. I am personally thankful.

[ME]

In short, all that you mentioned can be summarize by only the Energy equation.
I hope we all know the implication of two level parallel lines aka equation-sign:
B'cause what are we suppose to compare when the things we try to compare can't be compared or has an arbitrary outcome even before we compare....?
Otherwise just pray that the philosophy of checks and balances will turn in your favor whenever you look at your paycheck.

As far as I'm concerned, 'energy' only answers a single question: What's required to stop an object in motion.
Thanks to the equal sign we can reverse and equally ask: What's required to bring an object into motion.

The basic closed path issue can be illustrated with a simple tennis-ball analogy.
a. What's the energy requirement to shoot that ball over the net;
b. What's the energy requirement for the other to make it stop;
c. What's the energy requirement for the other to shoot it back;
d. What's the energy requirement to make it stop again.

In an ideal situation without much assumption and variation-tricks (= in-equations as the source of confusion) we can deduce that a=b=c=d, or more likely (a=b)&#8776;(c=d), or more practically: (a+d) = (b+c).
Sure, the trick of a tennis game is to disturb this equation as much as possible by adding something special within the framework.
Such is also basically what we all try to do with Perpetual Motion by looking for "something special" that alters simple balanced behavior.
That the energy-equation itself just is what it is doesn't mean it's done by design to restrict everyone or is some conspiracy to suppress knowledge.
When you suspect such is the reason anyway, then 'they' already have won, you sucker!
Although I must admit that it would be very entertaining when a>b>c>d while those tennis players try a<b<c<d.

You're welcome.



Add:

I think Denial of Creation is a misnomer.
Let's say there was a God responsible for creating the universe. From what I can determine such can imply several thing in relation to the conservation law. (Maybe you can add you own to the list)

• God had an enormous reservoir of energy stashed somewhere;
• and/or, this reservoir was a residual from a previous universe;
• and/or, this reservoir emerged as a sphere from a different dimension (maybe the universe wraps that way) and entered ours (could explain the rapid initial expansion) and then exploded because of it --oops;
• and/or, it was actually God that exploded - demonstrating how much power and omnipresent this God was;
• and/or, it demonstrates that this God is within everything and not somewhere outside: It's just us all;
• and/or, it has the ingredients that we can do it all over again, despite the predicted outcome of the universe;

But for real, you never know for really sure what came before.
Just as you don't exactly know what your parents did before you were born and yet caused your existence.
Nevertheless, you can have still have a rough idea though.

[silent]

I built a chain like yours earlier this year Fletch. I couldn't figure the application for it, but it was built with uniform blocks of wood glued to a piece of cloth ratchet strap. When held one way at the end it stuck straight out and when flipped the other way it hung down totally limp. It's an interesting mechanism for sure. It's a chain that will only sag in one direction.

Silent

[WaltzCee]

In short, all that you mentioned can be summarize by only the Energy equation.
I hope we all know the implication of two level parallel lines aka equation-sign:
B'cause what are we suppose to compare when the things we try to compare can't be compared or has an arbitrary outcome even before we compare....?
Otherwise just pray that the philosophy of checks and balances will turn in your favor whenever you look at your paycheck.

As far as I'm concerned, 'energy' only answers a single question: What's required to stop an object in motion.
Thanks to the equal sign we can reverse and equally ask: What's required to bring an object into motion.

The basic closed path issue can be illustrated with a simple tennis-ball analogy.
a. What's the energy requirement to shoot that ball over the net;

I'm not sure. I do know how much energy is required to drive it into the net.

b. What's the energy requirement for the other to make it stop;
c. What's the energy requirement for the other to shoot it back;
d. What's the energy requirement to make it stop again.

In an ideal situation without much assumption and variation-tricks (= in-equations as the source of confusion) we can deduce that a=b=c=d, or more likely (a=b)&#8776;(c=d), or more practically: (a+d) = (b+c).
Sure, the trick of a tennis game is to disturb this equation as much as possible by adding something special within the framework.
Such is also basically what we all try to do with Perpetual Motion by looking for "something special" that alters simple balanced behavior.
That the energy-equation itself just is what it is doesn't mean it's done by design to restrict everyone or is some conspiracy to suppress knowledge.
When you suspect such is the reason anyway, then 'they' already have won, you sucker!
Although I must admit that it would be very entertaining when a>b>c>d while those tennis players try a<b<c<d.

You're welcome.



Add:

I think Denial of Creation is a misnomer.
Let's say there was a God responsible for creating the universe. From what I can determine such can imply several thing in relation to the conservation law. (Maybe you can add you own to the list)

• God had an enormous reservoir of energy stashed somewhere;
• and/or, this reservoir was a residual from a previous universe;
• and/or, this reservoir emerged as a sphere from a different dimension (maybe the universe wraps that way) and entered ours (could explain the rapid initial expansion) and then exploded because of it --oops;
• and/or, it was actually God that nexploded - demonstrating how much power and omnipresent this God was;
• and/or, it demonstrates that this God is within everything and not somewhere outside: It's just us all;
• and/or, it has the ingredients that we can do it all over again, despite the predicted outcome of the universe;

But for real, you never know for really sure what came before.
Just as you don't exactly know what your parents did before you were born and yet caused your existence.
Nevertheless, you can have still have a rough idea though.

We do know there is an equivalency between energy and matter. One speculator,
Stephen Hawking, suggested the laws of physics did not apply at the beginning
moments of creation. Another speculator, Moses, said that in the beginning God said let
there be light. Visible light is just a slice from the electromagnetic spectrum. So it all began
with light. And we inhabit the quadratic expansion of that light. It's the stuff Stardust is
made of. CMBR.

We also know the universe is accelerating in its expansion. That was one powerful word.

Aside from 1LoT, can you name any scientific principle that says this can't be done?


You're welcome.

[Fletcher]

I built a chain like yours earlier this year Fletch. I couldn't figure the application for it, but it was built with uniform blocks of wood glued to a piece of cloth ratchet strap. When held one way at the end it stuck straight out and when flipped the other way it hung down totally limp. It's an interesting mechanism for sure. It's a chain that will only sag in one direction.

Silent

Yeah silent .. the sim chain is the same semi-flexible (arching one-way to the inside) concept as my Static Model Chain built of wood blocks in the pics.

I got the idea from B's. Item A of the Toy's Page (where the pivots are located on the inside). If it is a chain which I think it is.

It would kinda be like a Jacob's Ladder Toy in some regards, at least impression wise.

[silent]

Well what if the chain was lopped around the perimeter of the wheel in the opposite fashion? Let it collapse in between the levers, but when pushing out against it, it would go out kind of perpendicular to the force pushing on it? Just something to think about.

silent

[ME]

We do know there is an equivalency between energy and matter. One speculator, Stephen Hawking, suggested the laws of physics did not apply at the beginning moments of creation. Another speculator, Moses, said that in the beginning God said let there be light. Visible light is just a slice from the electromagnetic spectrum. So it all began with light. And we inhabit the quadratic expansion of that light. It's the stuff Stardust is made of. CMBR.

We also know the universe is accelerating in its expansion. That was one powerful word.

Aside from 1LoT, can you name any scientific principle that says this can't be done?

You're welcome.

I don't know. But I try anyway. Please correct when incorrect.
I'm not convinced that matter and energy can be flipped. Or that a certain amount of energy buys a certain amount of mass... Einstein tells us that for a mass to get accelerated to a certain finite speed it requires a such-and-such amount of energy... and then that mass loses cohesion.
I'm not well versed in quantum mechanics, so I just apply some logic to it: Maybe the laws of physics breaks down at the origin because space was limited.
The speed of information (C) at the local level traverses in a small space almost the same distance as the speed of information (C) at the global level. Meaning, because of limited space there was simply limited time for acting out a cause at a local level without having also an immediate effects on the global level. Probably with weird effects because everything that existed was entangled by the limitation. When something can't even complete a simple cycle for the sake of timing it's own existence (it doesn't have a frequency) before it gets influenced by something else then I figure that this 'something' does not exist as an isolated entity. There's no time as we know it, thus no measurable distance as we know it, thus no frequency as we know it, thus no object as we know it, thus no interaction as we know it, thus no energy factor that can be identified. Etc. ... It doesn't say it was without energy, or an equivalence. When everything was a collection of entangled undefined stuff then it seems to be one giant wave form. Why not call it light.

How does this situation affect the situation at local workshop-level? The universe is now huge compared to the elements of matter. Matter is still influenced by its surroundings and we apparently still see the global (now cosmic) background that still sends information back. Yet matter can now maintain its own frequency (and identity) many, many times before interaction takes place. Now cause and effect happens while things as a bunch remain intact. At your shop-level it doesn't really matter much when an impact happens a million atoms off (<1mm), or one electron gets so excited that it spews out some light. Geometry at this level is now very close to ideal. Deviations from the ideal may still be measured, with many insignificant decimals.

Can you name any scientific principle that says this can't be done?

"this"?
Universe: Perhaps matter is shrinking as a way to maintain consistency and apply gravity. Then the acceleration of universal expansion could be a fictitional effect, and perhaps solves this dark matter patchwork. (I dunno).
Perpetual Motion: I'm just looking for the magic trick that can still make it happen. (I dunno). Maybe Fletcher has an untraditional chain-trick up his sleeve?

[Fletcher]

Nah mate .. wearing a singlet and shorts today. Weathers hot and dry. Digger lifting up my concrete and asphalt drive, boxing it and new one going down next week.

You hit the nail on the head earlier. A fancy flywheel (balanced) + unbalance from the Chain.

All the Gaffle Jack and Pulley systems do is push the chain out and up a little bit to create that system imbalance.

The rlws can be as massive as you want. Since that secondary dual system is a balanced 'flywheel', then the 3rd member to join the party i.e. chain, can be a lot less massive as it only has one job to do.

The rlws must fully deploy to keep the symmetry of the flywheel, and balance. They are the main trick. The chain is the flashy stage magician, everyone knows the lovely assistants do the real magic with the help of smoke and mirrors lol.

[ME]

Well then.
Hit the music and lower the lights.
Position the spotlights at the stage.
Open the curtains and -
Hey look, a weird wheel appears.
It does not seem to have a normal rim.
Hooked to it is bearded magician with wild eyebrows and dressed in shorts and chains.
Uh oh, he starts singing to these lovely assistants:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGUKUL-rxw4
:-)

Good luck with the experiment, Hope it revolves well!

[Fletcher]

LOL .. I'm old enough to remember Trini Lopez Unchain My Heart very well. Listened to it all the way thru tapping my wheel - uh - feet.

[Fletcher]

ME .. in this thought experiment - if you can see that symmetry between the dual Carrier Wheels (in this dual axle format) can be maintained electronically, or using whatever means etc; then you can perhaps see it would be a flywheel and balanced i.e. no torque tendencies, in any position it was rotated to ?

If that symmetry is maintained but the RHS lifts outwards and a little upwards a Chain, as described with the Jack Effect, then you perhaps can see that there is now imbalance in the System ?

So some questions come to mind.

1. Can the rlws be any mass you choose and not affect the flywheel effect ?

2. Is the Chain imbalance temporary with equal positive and negative torques per sector, or is it asymmetric ?

3. Can the Jack Effect indeed lift a Chain of mass of your choice, wrt the Jack rlws mass ? Or are there constraints to this relationship ?

4. Does the mass of the rlws need to be orders of magnitude greater in relation to the unbalancing Chain so that the Chain is repositioned each sector and the the symmetry of the Secondary Carrier Wheels maintained ? Or maybe there is a functional relationship ?

N.B. simming can provide some predictive guidelines for some of the questions such as does the Jack work as described which is kinda fundamental to the hypothesis ?

[ME]

Well, be careful here!
Let's not ruin this opportunity for discovery by wrong assumptions.

This is what comes to my mind.
By the looks of it your gears are set-up to cause a normal counter-rotation.
Because the set-up is mirrored the wheels will actually turn the same way.
They don't counter, but they double.
And one wheel is not a flywheel, because repositioning those LW's still costs potential energy that need to be replenished.
When you counter-rotate the wheels (by adding an intermediate gear) then it counters some of the forces, but will not counter the effect of missing potential.
So I still suspect counter-rotation is still better than just a single wheel (<-- to be determined).
Now your chain has to overcome the missing potential of both wheels first before it can produce something extra.

Experience says that you need to be prepared for the disappointment that this torque-per-angle-produced by the chain oh-so-happens to be exactly equal to that lost potential of the LW's.
Let's hope I'm wrong here.


1. Worse case: The weight of the chain is proportional to the (combined) mass of the LW's;
2. As far as I can determine: As long as the LWs can maintain their overbalanced position then the chain should hang overbalanced and because of it will add more weight to the Lws it hangs on and should cause a constant torque. "Should" is always 'dangerous' in these exercises. "Should", as long as we didn't miss something;
3. See previous text, and (1);
4. See previous text, and (1);

NB. These kinds of simulations can take a long time. In that case a build could predict the outcome of the simulation.

[Fletcher]

Well, be careful here!

Trying to be ;7)

Let me say again ME that I appreciate you engaging with me in this discussion. It ain’t always easy to find the time and energy to do so with so little historical upside.

However there’s always a one-in-a-million chance of a new insight or two.

Let's not ruin this opportunity for discovery by wrong assumptions.

So true ! We gotta start with first principles and examine each step as best we can to build up a complete picture.

That’s the value of a hypothesis and an associated thought experiment. To examine those assumptions where physical evidence is lacking. Not quite the rigor of the scientific principle but still potentially useful none-the-less.

This is what comes to my mind.

By the looks of it your gears are set-up to cause a normal counter-rotation.

Yes, the sims show that. Two side-by-side same radius circles with one gear linking them. If one circle is rotated say CW, the other will rotate CCW by an equal amount/distance, and speed.

Because the set-up is mirrored the wheels will actually turn the same way. They don't counter(-rotate), but they double.

Ummm .. Yes, they are mirrored .. but IINM a force applied to one, say CW, will still make the other turn CCW. This is because gears are a physical meshing of teeth (levers). Consider the case of two side-by-side large gear wheels with outer teeth meshed at 3 o’cl and 9 o’cl respectively. At the point of contact the RHS one moves up and the other LHS also moves up. This gives CW + CCW rotations respectively.

Adding an idler gear between them (with two gears) they can be made to rotate in the same direction. Like a belt system would facilitate.

e.g. Consider the two gear wheels above with a slight separation so they are not meshed and in contact. Add an outer ‘v belt’ in rim groove system to coordinate rotation. Near the previous contact positions of 3 o’cl and 9 o’cl the RHS moves up and the LHS moves down, so that they both rotate CW. Then they “turn the same way�. Just like adding an intermediate gear you mention later.

... snip ...

Experience says that you need to be prepared for the disappointment that this torque-per-angle-produced by the chain oh-so-happens to be exactly equal to that lost potential of the LW's.

I learned to accept disappointment as an inevitable outcome of this hobby a long time ago. And not take it personally. I also learned to compartmentalize that inconvenient ‘truth’ and search never-the-less for another potential reality.

Let's hope I'm wrong here.

Yes, let’s ;7)

...........................

1. Worse case: The weight of the chain is proportional to the (combined) mass of the LW's;

2. As far as I can determine:

As long as the LWs can maintain their overbalanced position then the chain should hang overbalanced and because of it will add more weight to the LWs it hangs on and should cause a constant torque. "Should" is always 'dangerous' in these exercises. "Should", as long as we didn't miss something;

3. See previous text, and (1);

4. See previous text, and (1);

NB. These kinds of simulations can take a long time. In that case a build could predict the outcome of the simulation.

Yes, a build is the ultimate simulation. It would take a long time. But a lot can be accomplished with critical thinking and partial sims, if as in my case, I can’t sim the thing in its entirety. Even then 90 % wouldn’t believe what they were seeing, nor trust it, should it permanently offset the system CoM and accelerate etc.

And I doubt many would be ecstatic with this clumsy dual axle arrangement if it was physically built and worked. Tho they would know the mechanical principles in play and common to all B’s. wheels imo, only the discovery of a single axle variant would quell the thirst. It might take all of us to uncover that slight of hand.

..............................

I’ve split your post ME because I intend to address the rest of it in further detail next. I think there is an opportunity for beneficial insight and discussion to be had, from examining it more closely. I need some time to prepare it.

[Fletcher]

And one wheel is not a flywheel, because repositioning those LW's still costs potential energy that need to be replenished.

Background :

We all have a mental picture of a flywheel. e.g. the circumpunct symbol.

http://suffolkmasons.com/circumpunct-or ... -a-circle/

N.B. only read the Masonic connection if you want to. It just happened to be one of the first images I found on google tho it might have some relevance to the story.

A flywheel stores Potential Energy as Kinetic Energy and Momentum for Work. After it is depleted of KE and Momentum it must have work done on it to replenish its Potential (rpm). It’s mass is generally uniformly spread thru the disk but not always so, like in a bike rim. The CoM / CoG is at the axle / CoR and it doesn’t move about.

In these cases the MOI (inertia) is invariant. As there are no moving parts that have to transition radially somewhere and back again for the reset (wrt Stevin’s Problem). It had no GPE at its fixed axle because the CoM is neither raised nor lowered wrt the axle / CoR.

Sometimes flywheels have eccentric mass distribution. The mass spread is not homogeneous (it’s MOI is constant however because of no displacing parts). This causes the flywheel to ‘hunt’ in rotation as gravity affects it. In this instance it’s CoM is not located at the CoR. This makes it in effect a pendulum like device that we know well. Give it GPE by doing Work on it and watch it swing downwards and turn that into RKE and then give it back again as GPE, oscillating ad infinitum without friction losses.

In these latter situations the CoM is not located at the CoR. So when Work is done on it to give it ‘height’ or rpm the CoM rotates at a set radius from the axle. We could lift it until the CoM was a few degrees off vertical and let it swing of its own accord until it was a few degree off vertical again the other side (the pendulum). The CoM rotates with the circle at constant radius as mentioned. To get the circle pendulum to continue rotation we have to top it up with a nudge of energy each revolution, so that it overcomes its GPE shortfall and accelerates and gain RKE and Angular Momentum. This is a small amount of energy top up when frictions are low.

Guts :

When we have internal parts in our wheel that move about radially, or advance and retard at the same radius for example, either by Work done on them, or under gravity's influence, they have to be accelerated and decelerated. That means a force is applied to them and another force stops them. Usually the KE of that transitioning object is wasted in contact with something and is very hard to capture and use to nudge the wheel forward by giving it momentum (Newton’s Laws). This robs the system of Potential Energy which must be replenished in some manner.

When you counter-rotate the wheels (by adding an intermediate gear) then it counters some of the forces, but will not counter the effect of missing potential.

So I still suspect counter-rotation is still better than just a single wheel (<-- to be determined).

Now your chain has to overcome the missing potential of both wheels first before it can produce something extra.

Now consider my concept of two eccentric CoM dual wheels with ganged levers falling outwards. The rlws move relatively slowly and therefore impact force of deceleration is reduced (still we would want to use that energy if we could). In this case the MOI of each wheel does change, and back again at reset to next sector. The net result is no change to the RKE of each wheel from MOI change, IINM.

But in this instance the system CoM moves vertically downwards and vertically upwards again, giving near full restoration of GPE. Much like a pendulum except the system CoM is not at a fixed radius from the CoR (for both wheels) and only travels downwards and upwards vertically. It will still need a nudge of energy to get it over the top as per the previous pendulum examples. This potentially can come from the Chain Drive CoM torque, as per my hypothesis. This is a different type of flywheel CoM action in my estimation !

Things to note :

The two wheels have an inside rotating torque tendency due to the turning moments the rlws create. If they were not geared together and the RHS had no Chain Drive then left to their own devices the LHS would rotate CW and the RHS CCW (to the inside). Add the gear connection and their torques are nulled.

To have the rlws ‘fall’ at the appropriate time they in fact have to rotate LHS CCW and RHS CW (rotate to the outside - i.e. backwards). Then the RHS system rlws theoretically can displace (right-shift) and lift a minimal vertical distance the Chain Driver CoM. Thereafter Chain Driver can then provide the CW torque to allow the RHS system to rotate CW and LHS CCW, against their natural tendencies of CCW and CW respectively.

............................

So to address ME’s concerns. There will be energy wastage of transitioning rlws. We’d hope to minimize that. Because each rlw falls incrementally, and only a short distance, it doesn’t have enough time or acceleration to build up much speed etc). We might amplify the positives of this (if any) by having many more lever sets and shorter incremental fall distances ? I have no idea at the minute how to mathematically isolate this to confirm or deny an advantage ?! This is a big point of difference to normally transitioning single levers and weights falling over a far greater distance.

The vertically only displaced system CoM of the dual secondary wheels does need replenishing, plus a small amount for impact losses of rlws.

Can we quantify how much these energy requirements are to break even ? And can we then reconcile that to the Chain Drives CoM average displacement and torque contribution to the balanced flywheel sub-system ?

N.B. I will say in defense of this hypothesis that B’s. wheel were heard to have what were thought to be impact sounds on the descending side. Wolff saw short rim boards, and from other circumstantial evidence thought there were falling rods and weights. The point being that even B’s. wheels lost energy from transitioning of weights and deceleration, and MOI changes etc, but still somehow had an excess or torque to accumulate wheel Momentum and RKE. Somehow he found the perfect workaround that negated the normal accounting arguments for an alleged true mechanical PM wheel. N.B. if losing system PE from transitioning weights of all kinds ruled-out all these arrangements then a true flywheel would have least losses, but would have no torque ! I'm suggesting a happy middle ground.

The pics below shows two eccentric circles (CoM shown) joined by a Gear. They are shown with their natural rotation tendencies to the inside. The RHS circle is given a force to push it around akin to how the Chain Drive might contribute. The system CoM is shown. Run the sim and see the system CoM run up and down the vertical line restoring GPE each rotation (special flywheel like). It is a mechanical metaphor for the hypothesis, except there is no transitioning of ganged rlws and Chain etc. But it gives a clearer idea.